Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger
jet did not really hit the Pentagon.

This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the
intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are
trying to conceal real news stories such as the Israeli Spy Ring
and its connections to the attacks on the World Trade Towers. So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by
government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares doubt the
official story.

At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly
showing the impact, and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky Internet web sites"
and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the
web.

But if you think about it, common sense tells you their claims are just plain silly. After all, if
the passenger jet didn’t hit the Pentagon, then where did it go? And since the people behind 9-11 had to get
rid of the passenger jet and its contents anyway, there was no reason for them NOT to ram it into the
Pentagon. Why risk a swap? Why complicate matters even further?

Lately, in their efforts to plant more
bogus information on the web for the media to use to ridicule doubters of the official story, the shills have
used over-processed and blurry photos of the 9-11 planes to claim that they carried "pods" on the outside
(which the ground crews at all the airports somehow never noticed). For that reason, the government shills
have come to be known as the 9-11 "Pod People".

"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the
plane was just right above our cars." [Father Stephen McGraw] estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet
over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.

"The
plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a
few feet away from my car."

"I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that
it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of
straight. That was my impression," he said. [mdw.army.mil]

In response to the question of "where is the wreckage of the plane", the answer is that much of the
wreckage slid into the ground floor of the Pentagon. It slid INTO the building, into the first floor space,
starting a fire in the first floor, whereupon the upper floors later collapsed down onto the remains of the
aircraft. Most of the aircraft wreckage is therefore under the collapsed roof section in the photo.

So
where is the rest of the wreckage from the passenger plane? Right in plain view, for those who actually look.

ThePentagon is a building
mostly made of concrete and wood. Yet here is a pile of crumpled aluminum debris, and clearly seen mixed
in with it are pieces of luggage. Since the Pentagon itself does not travel, we can conclude that the luggage
(and the aluminum shards mixed with them) are part of the remains of the passenger jet which hit the Pentagon.

In similar crashes, the
resulting debris was in small pieces, 6 feet long at most. You don’t SEE huge pieces of airplane sitting at
crash sites in head on collisions such as slamming into the wall of the Pentagon. Despite their impressive
size, aircraft and relatively fragile objects due to weight considerations.

THE POD PEOPLE’S CARTOON WORLD

Only in Warner Brothers cartoons does the
Coyote leave a cookie-cutter outline of himself as he crashes into the rock face. In the real world (someplace
that the "pod people" need to spend more time in) collisions are more complex. Airplanes do not make clean
outline holes in buildings they collide with any more than cars make clean outline holes in walls they collide
with. The Pentagon, built mostly of wood and concrete, and in that one section having beenrecently reinforced, is a heavy and solid object.
Jet aircraft, designed to be able to fly, are very thin and lightweight. They are, if you think about it,
mostly filled with air, like an aluminum balloon. They are not designed to penetrate other objects or to
remain intact while doing so.

"Then I picked [the plane] up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was
like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion." [Mike Walter – eyewitness]

Take a glass Christmas ornament and hurl it against a brick wall. Do you get a round opening in the brick
wall the size of the ornament? No, of course not. Neither will an aluminum plane leave a clean outline of
itself crashing into concrete. In the case of the plane, there are subassemblies which are heavy and solid,
such as the engines, the frames supporting the landing gear, cockpit avionics, the potable water tanks, APU,
etc. On impact, these would break loose from the aircraft and continuing forward, produce smaller holes.

The "Pod People" will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have
insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the
witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon "have to be" wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same
tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800.

As
the "Pod People" use the same tactics, they reveal who they really are.

A concrete wall hit by an F-4
fighter jet at 500 MPH:

"The plane atomized with the impact, it just disappeared into dust – only the tips
of the wings escaped total destruction. But the wall, designed to move and absorb energy, did its job well."

The above was a test where an F-4 fighter jet (fighters are built more sturdy than passenger jets in order
to survive despite combat damage) was slammed into a test wall to evaluate the damage that might be caused if
a jet plane was crashed into a reactor containment vessel.

The wall in this test was considerably stronger
than the Pentagon wall and suffered little damage. However, that damage was found to be primarily from the
engines of the F-4, whereas the rest of the airframe shattered on impact without damaging the wall at all.
This test proves that the Pentagon damage would come not from the aircraft as a whole, but from the heavy and
dense components such as the engines, landing gear blocks, avionics, potable water bottles, etc.

PICTURES OF THE PENTAGON IMPACT AREA BEFORE THE COLLAPSE.

In the second picture the
impact area of the aircraft has been roughly outlined.

Eyewitness Account of Flight 77’s Pentagon Impact

Firefighter Alan Wallace was standing outside his fire station when he looked across the
nearby interstate and saw a white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him. It
slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him. "When I felt the fire, I hit the ground," he
said. [detnews
9/11/2001]

The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: ‘airliner’,
‘big’, ‘silver’, ‘roaring’, etc.***

at least 45

The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there’s
no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet.

at least 25

The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.

at least 22

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the
highways.

at least 19

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last
seconds.

at least 12

The amount of eye witnesses who stated the plane had it’s flaps up (not deployed). Witness 1 saw a 757,
witness 2 and 4 both saw an American Airlines, witness 3 saw an American Airlines 757. No known witnesses
stated the opposite.

at least 4

The amount of witnesses who reported the plane was pretty quiet. (One of them acknowledged it was the
shock. Another one saw it was an American Airlines jet, saw it had its gears up and saw light poles being
knocked down. Others were in their cars, all windows up and the radio on)

at least 4

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had its gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a
pole)

at least 1

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn’t
relevant!

0

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.

0

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.

"In the last several
months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo’s work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of
Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are
beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero
and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition."

During the Jim Garrison trial of Clay Shaw in the JFK assassination, a witness showed up who linked Lee
Oswald and Shaw. Despite warnings from his staff, Garrison used this witness. But once he was on the stand,
the witness claimed that he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent substitutions by "them".
During the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the committee made a point of calling a witness who
claimed that the open umbrella by the motorcade route in Dallas was actually a poison dart gun that had fired
a dart at JFK to paralyze him, in order to make him an easier target. The actual umbrella was then displayed
amidst jokes and laughter and great rolling of eyes, and shown to be merely an umbrella. More recently,
Congressional hearings into abuses by the BATF featured one witness, dressed in camo and identifying himself
as a member of a free militia, who claimed that the US Government had built and was testing a machine that
made tornados.

In all three cases the witnesses were plants by the government whose job it was to
taint any real questions of what the government was up to with silliness that the media could use to make fun
of the whole issue and those who dared question the official story. The media focused on the "fingerprint man"
to ridicule Jim Garrison. (Years later Richard Secord admitted under oath that Clay Saw had been a CIA
contract agent after all.) The story about the umbrella at Dealey Plaza was focused on by the media to show
how silly the entire issue of questioning the Warren Report was (but fell flat on its face when the HSCA
concluded that there had been more than one gunman in Dealey Plaza that day) and, of course, "Tornado man",
camo and all, was the featured video clip on the news reports of the hearings into BATF, to the exclusion of
the family members of dozens of people mistakenly shot by the BATF when the BATF raided the wrong homes. BATF,
it should also be remembered, was the agency which, in an attempt to stage a news-worthy raid on "gun nuts",
initiated the Waco disaster.

The game is an old one, to plant bogus and easily disproved claims
in any inquiry into what the government is doing, in order to ridicule those asking questions. In the old days
it worked, because the media was under government control and could be counted on to withhold exposure of the
fraud until it could most damage those who asked questions. These days, in the age of the Internet, such
planted hoaxes do not survive because the questions the media should ask but refuse to do so ARE asked and
answered.

For example, the claim is that the 9-11 masterminds used a missile on the Pentagon to
simulate the impact of the aircraft then spirited away the actual plane and killed the crew and passengers.
Why would anyone bother? If the end result is the death of the occupants, why not go ahead and carry the crash
out?

Those who argue that there was no plane at the Pentagon are either spooks, or those whose
knowledge of physics is based on cartoons where characters leave clear outline shapes in walls they penetrate.
Airplanes are built to fly through the air, not burrow through solid objects. Built for economy, not combat,
passenger jets are, compared to a building, as light and as fragile as a glass Christmas tree ornament.

The "No plane at the Pentagon" story has failed to catch on to the degree where it can be used to
discredit those who wonder just who was really behind the 9-11 staged terrorist attacks. Those spooks who
promoted the story realize that they are at risk of exposure so their only remaining tactic is to try to claim
that anyone who does not agree with them must be the government plant. If I directly responded, their goal
would be not to conduct a debate, but simply to tie up as much of my limited time as they could in an endless
unwinnable argument while they stand there with their hair on fire claiming they cannot smell any smoke.

The Internet has become the high ground in the war for the minds of America. The other side likes to
play dirty. The claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon is a hoax by an enemy that survives by deception
and lies.